readings Flashcards
Lipmann - Stereotypes, Public Opinion
“inevitably our opinions cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things, than we can directly observe. they have, therefore, to be pieced together out of what others have reported and what we can imagine”
“most facts in consciousness seem to be partly made”
“role of the observer is always selective and usually creative”
“for the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. in the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us”
“there is a connection between our vision and the facts, but it is often a strange connection”
“in untrained observation we pick recognizable signs out of the environment. the signs stand for ideas, and these ideas we fill out with our stock images”
this is an economical shortcut
“there is neither time nor opportunity for intimate acquaintance”
“we are told about the world before we see it. we imagine most things before we experience them”
“preconceptions…govern deeply the whole process of perception”
but if we learn about our use of stereotypes and about their nature, “we hold them lightly…modify them gladly”
NOBA - research methods in social psychology
anecdotal evidence
lab experiments
complex experimental designs: multiple independent and/or dependent variables
biological markers (hormones) or neuroimaging techniques (fMRI)
field experiments
naturalistic observation
experience sampling techniques
surveys
IAT
priming
archival research techniques
5 principles of ethical research
a. informed consent
b. privacy
c. risks and benefits
d. deception
e. debriefing
Sherif - Robber’s Cave
friction between the 2 groups
not pre-existing feelings from before camp, not based on ethnic, religious, education, physical, intellectual differences
state of friction was systematically produced by introducing conditions of rivalry/frustration/competition
appeal to common enemy wasn’t used - because this widens conflict
emphasizing role of leaders wasn’t used - because effectiveness of leaders isn’t unlimited
chose common, subordinate goals instead
contact introduced to reduce friction - but mere contact wasn’t enough, and immediate situational factors mattered
ie. if they were at camp (associated with strong group lines) versus on camping trip (new environment)
Sidanius & Pratto - Social Dominance Theory
hadn’t yet integrated intergroup conflict, stereotyping and group oppression into a coherent/comprehensive theoretical model
SDT was developed to fill this gap
attempt to connect worlds of individual personality and attitudes with domains of institutional behaviour and social structures
attempts to identify mechanisms that produce/maintain social hierarchy
3 stratification systems: age, gender, arbitrary set
arbitrary set: filled with socially constructed and highly-salient groups characteristics like clan, ethnicity, estate, nation, race, caste, social class etc
arbitrary set: highest degree of arbitrariness, flexibility, plasticity, situational sensitivity in determining which group distinctions are socially salient
arbitrary set: associated with greatest degree of violence, brutality, oppression
arbitrary set systems ARE NOT GENERALLY FOUND within hunter-gatherer societies
because there’s NO ECONOMIC SURPLUS
lack of surplus prevents development of highly specialized social systems (professional armies, police, bureaucracies that exert authority)
so all males in these societies are essentially military equals
but in societies with economic surplus, some come to control more resources and create systems to keep themselves at the top
every attempt to abolish arbitrary-set group-based hierarchy within societies of economic surplus have failed, without exception
findings that arbitrary-set hierarchy WILL EMERGE whenever proper economic conditions allow
unlike arbitrary-set, GENDER and AGE social stratification systems are UNIVERSAL
no known matriarchal societies (where women control political/military authority of a society)
most FORMS OF GROUP CONFLICT and OPPRESSION (racism, ethnocentrism, sexism, nationalism, classism, regionalism) can be seen as MANIFESTATIONS of PREDISPOSITION to form GROUP HIERARCHIES
prejudice, stereotypes, ideologies of group superiority and inferiority, discrimination both help PRODUCE and are REFLECTIONS OF group based social hierarchies
human social systems are modulated by counteracting forces of HIERARCHY-ENHANCING (HE) and HIERARCHY-ATTENTUATING (HA) forces
SDT is about identifying/understanding intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup and institutional mechanisms that produce/maintain group-based social hierarchy and how hierarchy contributes to these things
3 processes that DRIVe group-based social hierarchy
a. aggregated individual discrimination
b. aggregated institutional discrimination
c. behavioural asymmetry
types of behavioural asymmetry:
a. outgroup favouritism/deference
b. self-debilitation/self-fulfilling prophecies
SDT differs from other theories in that it stresses how subordinates actively participate in/contribute to their own subordination
subordinates aren’t merely objects of oppression, they also retain some agency and actively participate in oppressive exercises
thinks that most activities of subordinates are cooperate, rather than subversive, to systems of group-based domination
systems of group-based social hierarchy aren’t maintained simply by oppressive activities of dominants or passive compliance of suboridinates
rather are maintained by the COORDINATED and COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES of both DOMINANTS and SUBORDINATES
Open Text BC - Ingroup Favouritism and Prejudice
- causes and outcomes of ingroup favouritism
- results of Henri Tajfel’s research on minimal groups
- personality/cultural variables that influence ingroup favouritism
Tajfel minimal group paradigm: simply dividing people into arbitrary groups produces ingroup favouritism
Klee vs Kandinsky manipulation: gave more rewards to people from their own (completely arbitrary, unimportant and new) group, rather than distributing rewards equally
ingroup favouritism is present young
young kids like similar peers more form age 3 and up
those who express ingroup favouritism are liked better than egalitarians
describe ingroup with broad positive traits but describe negative ingroup behaviours with specific behaviours of individual group members
reserves negative aspects to individuals, extend positive aspects to whole group
UAE/FAE
ingroup person does something good - we see this as a stable internal characteristic of group as a whole
outgroup person does something bad - attribute this to stable negative group characteristics
MOST IMPORTANT DETERMINANT OF INGROUP FAVOURITISM: SIMPLE SELF-ENHANCEMENT
especially likely to show ingroup favouritism when we’re threatened
self-esteem increases after derogating outgroups (ingroup favouritism makes us feel good)
people express less prejudice after affirming important and positive aspect of self-concept
rather than being saddened by upward comparison to other group members (comparing ourselves to group members who outperformed us), sometimes we use successes of others to feel good about ourselves
WHEN INGROUP FAVOURITISM DOESN’T OCCUR:
when members of ingroup are clearly inferior to other groups on an important dimensions
members of low-status groups show less ingroup favouritism (may even display outgrou pfavouritism)
members of ingroup judge other members very negatively when member behaves in a way that threatens positive image of ingroup: BLACK SHEEP EFFECT
there are PERSONALITY and CULTURAL differences in ingroup favouritism
individual differences
people especially reliant on group membership to create positive self identity are more likely to show ingroup favouritism
ie. higher scores on Collective Self-Esteem Scale predicts higher ingroup favouritism
Authoritarianism relates to desire to protect/enhance the self and ingroup because of need to self-enhance and preference for simplicity
strong goals towards OTHER-CONCERN predicts less ingroup favouritism and less prejudice
higher SDO means higher ingroup favouritism
cultural differences: Chinese people made stronger stereotypical trait inferences than Americans on basis of target’s membership in a group
^probably because of collectivist orientation (more likely to infer personality traits on basis of group membership)
black sheep effect
strong devaluation of ingroup members who threaten the positive image and identity of the ingroup
example of when ingroup favouritism doesn’t occur
Hess & Pickett - Social Cognition and Attitudes
social cognition: how thoughts, perceptions, memories and thinking patterns impact how we think about the social world
how do people make sense of themselves and others to make judgments, form attitudes and make predictions about the future
schema theory
heuristics: mental shortcuts that reduce complex problem-solving to simpler, rule-based decisions
people use heuristics when judging category membership
representativeness heuristic: judging likelihood of object belonging in a category based on how similar it is to one’s mental rep of that category
^often is a good predictor, but bad if contradicts base-rate info
availability heuristic: aid in attempts to judge likelihood of something happening, using ease with which instances of it come to mind
^less reliable when judging frequency of relatively infrequent but highly accessible events
ie. fear of flying instead of driving in cars (because plane crashes are highly memorable and publicized)
thin-slice judgments
we make surprisingly good and quick inferences about other people’s emotional states, personality traits and even sexual orientation based on snippets of info
BUT we don’t always hold greater insight into ourselves, only do for some behaviours
planning fallacy
tend to underestimate how much time it will take us to complete a task
good side: sometimes makes people take on ambitious projects
affective forecasting
predictions about whether we’ll feel positively/negatively about certain outcomes
and about how strongly/for how long we’ll feel that way
we’re good at predicting if event will make us feel good or bad, but we’re not good at predicting how happy/sad and for how long
impact bias (affective forecasting)
tendency to overestimate intensity of future feelings
typically overestimate how good or bad we’ll feel after an event
durability bias (affective forecasting)
tendency to overestimate how long positive/negative events will affect us
bias is much greater for predictions about negative events
hot cognition
mental processes influenced by desires/feelings
ie. getting a bad grade - emotions cloud ability to reason objectively about quality of your work
informed by directional goals: we may want situation to turn out a certain way/want our belief to be the truth
directional goals can lead to motivated skepticism
being skeptical of evidence that goes against what we want to believe
despite evidence’s strength
ie. people trust medical tests less if the results suggest they have a deficiency compared to if they say they’re healthy
mood-congruent memory
tendency to recall memories SIMILAR IN VALENCE to our current mood
mood becomes a retrieval cue
and because availability of events in memory affects their perceived frequency (availability heuristics), the biased retrieval of congruent memories impacts subsequent judgments
